1. C OMPARATIVE M ETHOD : T HE M IDDLE G ROUND A PPROACH Presentation by Vee Chansa-Ngavej

2. C ASE S TUDY A PPROACH Case Study: Method for early studies of areas Lack of information led to various case studies Orientalism scholarship as “cases” Latin America (Merle King article), Africa, Asia Study of individual countries, no comparisons No systematic method! Cases were isolated Data was qualitative, (descriptive, subjective, humanistic)

3. P OSITIVISM : T HE S CIENTIFIC A PPROACH Positivism: Scientific methodology to find patterns in human and state behaviour Popular rise since post-WWII Process of gathering statistical data, identifying patterns/generalizations and testing against hypotheses to formulate theory Contributed to models of Rational Choice Theory, Game theories Application of natural sciences to social sciences, including Area Studies But can the social world really be quantified?

5. D IFFERENCES IN A PPROACH Quantitative or Qualitative approach? Quantitative (Positivism)Qualitative (Case Studies) Statistical/Numerical/MeasurableNarrative/Historical/Interpretive Many Cases (>20)Case Study / Comparative Deductive Inference (Theory Testing) Top-down Rational/Scientific/Empirical Inductive (Theory Generation) Bottom-up Normative/Humanistic/Subjective “Who, What, When, Where”?“Why, How”?

6. P ROS AND C ONS Quantitative approach: Pros: Can use statistical analysis to identify patterns and establish generalizations to test hypotheses Cons: Lacks explanatory depth…does not tell the “story” behind the numbers Qualitative approach: Pros: Can provide important details and insights into different phenomena Cons: Not suitable for testing hypotheses, establishing patterns/generalizations and theory-building

7. E XAMPLE OF Q UANTITATIVE M ETHOD

8. E XAMPLE

9. E XAMPLE OF Q UALITATIVE M ETHOD

10. E NTER THE C OMPARATIVE M ETHOD (S MALL N) Quantitative / Qualitative trade off between hypothesis testing (predictive power) and explanatory powers Comparative Method as the “Middle Ground” approach Provides insightful analysis into a few cases, ability to compare and contrast, singling out causal variables May start out as deductive hypothesis testing, but could also lead to inductive discovery of new hypotheses Can provide foundation for theory-building More comparisons could eventually lead to statistical model! Enjoyed rise in the 60s and 70s Ideal approach when confronted with lack of resources (time, energy, funding!)

11. C OMPARATIVE METHOD (C ONT.) Ideal methodology for political science and IR due to nature of social phenomena There exists relatively few cases of wars, famines, etc. Unlike natural sciences, social phenomena such as World Wars and Revolutions cannot simply be replicated in their exact historical contexts in any laboratory) Rise of comparative historical analysis methodology Need for identifying causal variables among the few available cases (risk of confusing cause vs. correlation) However, because few cases are compared, it is difficult to make generalizations and formulate theory

12. R EFINEMENTS TO C OMPARATIVE M ETHOD Lijphart’s suggestions on dealing with few cases: Limit cases to “comparable” ones Identify cases that have common peripheral variables (variables that are not central to the study, thereby in effect “controlling” those variables) Identify cases that are different in terms of key variables to enhance analysis of the influence of causal variables End goal: Developing theory that is parsimonious Focuses on a smaller number of explanatory factors Reduction of variables leading to (over)simplification (i.e. Assumptions made in Rational Choice Theory) Leads to causal analysis, hypothesis testing, eventually to a theory with (hopefully) predictive powers!

13. “S CIENCE ” IN S OCIAL S CIENCE Can the social world be quantified? Natural science theories: Tend to be deterministic Social science theories: Tend to be probabilistic Possibility of oversimplification of social phenomenas Why can’t IR scholars and economists predict important events? End of Cold War, Arab Spring, recessions, the list goes on…! No agreement among scholars of different schools of thought!! Levels of Analysis: 2 nd and 3 rd Levels of Analysis: May be easier to seek patterns and make generalizations (trade patterns, outbreaks of war, revolutions, election poll/results, famines/victims) 1 st Level: Difficult to quantify human pschye in each social context/historical situation (minds of leaders/ decision-makers)